Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the second respondent herein concerned in 416/BDFGISV/2005, set aside the order of detention passed therein dated 13.08.2005 against the detenu and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Ghouse Basha S/o Syed Hammed before the Court and set him at liberty, detained in Central Prison, Chennai.) P.Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, by name Ghouse Basha, who was detained as 'Goonda' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 13.08.2005, challenges the same in this Petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With regard to the above contention, learned Government Advocate has placed certain details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 21.09.2005 was received by the Government on 22.09.2005 and remarks were called for on 23.09.2005 and remarks were received by the Government on 28.09.2005. Thereafter, the file was submitted on 29.09.2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 29.09.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 30.09.2005. The rejection letter prepared on 10.10.2005 was sent to the detenu on the same date i.e. on 10.10.2005 and the same was served to him on 11.10.2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 30.09.2005, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 10.10.2005. In the absence of any explanation by the person concerned even after excluding the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the time taken for preparation of rejection letter is on the higher side and we hold that the said delay has prejudiced the detenu in disposal of his representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention. 4. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention. 4. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.